Category Archives: General Safety

Why We Care When Things Go Right

By Lorenda Ward, Sr. Investigator-In-Charge, NTSB Office of Aviation Safety

As an investigator-in-charge (IIC) at the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), part of my job is to launch to aviation accident scenes. When my team and I arrive at the scene of an accident, we come prepared to uncover the sequence of events that led to the accident—whether it was weather, human factors, or a problem with the plane’s structure, systems, or engines. It’s the NTSB’s responsibility to find out what occurred and provide recommendations to prevent future accidents.

When we investigate an accident, we don’t only look for the things that went wrong, but we also look for those that went right. Sometimes these “rights” ensure the accident didn’t become an even greater tragedy, and sharing them can help crewmembers and operators in the future ensure the safest flight possible. A good example of this is a recent accident we investigated in Michigan.

On March 8, 2017, an Ameristar Charters Boeing MD-83 ran off the end of the runway during a high-speed rejected takeoff at Ypsilanti Airport in Michigan. The plane was scheduled to carry 6 crewmembers and 110 passengers to Washington, DC—among them, the University of Michigan men’s basketball team, cheerleaders, band, coaches, and some parents. Fortunately, no one was killed, though some passengers sustained minor injuries.

March 8, 2017, Ypsilanti, Michigan, runway overrun during rejected takeoff
Rear view of accident scene

I led the small team that was launched to the accident site. On scene, we found that the right geared tab of the elevator flight control system had become jammed. Our investigation showed that this occurred during a strong windstorm that struck the area while the aircraft was parked at Ypsilanti Airport prior to the flight.

Seconds after the captain tried to “pitch,” or rotate, the airplane’s nose up, he quickly realized that the airplane was not going to get airborne. At that time, the airplane was traveling at a speed of 158 mph and was about 5,000 feet down the 7,500-foot runway. Because the elevator was jammed in the airplane nose-down position, no matter how far back the captain pulled the yoke, the nose refused to pitch up. The captain quickly called to abort the takeoff, but the plane was traveling too fast to be stopped on the remaining runway. It departed the end of the runway at about 115 mph, traveled 950 feet across a runway safety area, struck an airport fence, and came to rest after crossing a paved road.

Our investigation determined that the flight crew had completed all preflight checks appropriately, including a flight control test, and found no anomalies before initiating the takeoff. Furthermore, we determined that there was no way the pilot checks could have detected the flight control jam.

It’s important to note that, not only did the captain appropriately reject the takeoff once he felt the airplane was not able to fly, but the check airman did not try to countermand the rejected takeoff. And after the plane came to a rest, the cabin crew also followed procedures to coordinate a careful, safe passenger evacuation.

Also essential to the safe outcome was the fact that the passengers followed the crew’s instructions, so everyone got off quickly without any serious injuries. Unfortunately, too many times, we see passengers delay an evacuation by ignoring crew instructions to, say, retrieve their luggage.

Although the accident airplane crashed through a perimeter fence and crossed a road before coming to a stop, an extended runway safety area that was added to Ypsilanti airport between 2006 and 2009 allowed the airplane plenty of room and time to come to rest safely. This expansion was part of a national program started by the Federal Aviation Administration in 1999 in response to an NTSB recommendation to add runway safety areas to many commercial airports.

Our investigative team learned that three critical factors—things done “right”— helped prevent this accident from becoming a tragedy, in which numerous lives could have been lost:

1) The captain’s quick response

2) The crew’s adherence to procedures, which resulted in a quick and efficient evacuation

3) The addition of a compliant runway safety area

After 20-plus years of investigating accidents, it’s refreshing to me to see an accident in which more things went right than wrong, and where people lived to tell the tale because of good decision making. These cases don’t normally get a lot of attention, but it’s important for us to understand and report out all our findings—even the good—because we see lessons there, too.

I encourage everyone to read the full Ypsilanti report. A link to the accident docket and related news releases are also available at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/2017-ypsilanti-mi.aspx.

When an Aircraft Goes Missing

By Mike Hodges, Air Safety Investigator, NTSB Office of Aviation Safety

On August 9, 2008, a privately-owned Cessna 182E airplane was reported overdue near Juneau, Alaska. The NTSB immediately started monitoring search efforts being conducted by the US Coast Guard, the Alaska State Troopers, the Civil Air Patrol, and a host of good Samaritans. The search area was expansive and included remote inland fjords, coastal waterways, and steep mountainous terrain. In an effort to start gathering information that was potentially relevant to the accident, we interviewed other pilots flying in the area, as well as Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Flight Service Station personnel to better understand weather conditions at the time the airplane disappeared. After an extensive but unsuccessful search, search-and-rescue activities were suspended on August 20, 2008.

For all aviation accidents such as this one, when initial search-and-rescue activities are suspended and no wreckage is found, the NTSB issues a preliminary report, available to the public in an aviation accident database that can be accessed through our website. If the wreckage is not located within 180 days from the initial date of disappearance, we complete a final report with a probable cause statement of “undetermined.” The final report includes all pertinent information that was initially gathered at the time the aircraft was reported missing. If the wreckage is eventually located after the initial 180 days, we reopen and complete the investigation.

On October 25, 2017, I was the on-call air safety investigator for the NTSB Alaska Regional Office. Alaska State Troopers notified me that a deer hunter had discovered airplane wreckage on Admiralty Island, about 15 miles south of Juneau, Alaska. We eventually determined that it was the missing Cessna 182E. So, 9 years after the airplane went missing, we reopened the case.

In Juneau, I met with an aviation safety inspector from the FAA, an Alaska State Trooper, and members of Juneau Mountain Rescue. As with most remote aircraft accidents in Alaska, traveling to the scene requires an airplane or helicopter because there are no roads. The NTSB chartered a commercial, float-equipped Cessna 206 airplane, and we flew to Young Lake on Admiralty Island in the Tongass National Forest—the largest intact temperate rainforest in the world.

Flying to Young Lake near the accident site
Flying to Young Lake near the accident site

As an air safety investigator working in Alaska, I often face unique challenges, whether it’s a hike to a remote area to reach an accident site or a wildlife encounter. In this case, after arriving at the northern end of Young Lake, we hiked nearly 2 miles to the accident site, each of us carrying either firearms or bear spray because of the large population of brown bears on the island. We also carried satellite phones because there’s no cell phone reception in the area. The wreckage was in densely‑forested, steep mountainous terrain a little over a mile northwest of the north end of Young Lake, at an elevation of about 1,075 ft. mean sea level. The average tree height at the accident site was about 100 ft.

Landing on Young Lake
Landing on Young Lake

When we arrived at the site, the FAA aviation safety inspector and I documented and examined the wreckage. The cockpit and fuselage were destroyed by a postimpact fire. The wreckage of the missing airplane was confirmed via the serial number located on the airframe data plate. Time and nature had taken their toll—the heavily corroded wreckage was covered with dirt, fungus, leaves, and branches. The Alaska State Trooper recovered the remains of the two occupants.

View of the wreckage
View of the wreckage

Once the investigative and recovery activities were completed, we hiked back to Young Lake, contacted the commercial aviation operator for pickup, and returned to Juneau. Because the location was so remote, the wreckage was not recovered.

NTSB Air Safety Investigator Mike Hodges
Mike Hodges using a satellite phone at Young Lake to provide an update to NTSB leadership

On-scene activity is just one part of our investigative process. In each investigation, we look at the roles of the human, the machine, and the environment. By learning about the factors that cause an accident, we can make recommendations to prevent similar accidents in the future. In this investigation, I reviewed the airplane’s maintenance records, considered the pilot’s aviation training and medical records, and examined meteorological and topographical data for the accident area. As a result of the investigation, the NTSB determined that the probable cause of the accident was the pilot’s decision to continue visual flight into an area of instrument meteorological conditions, which resulted in the pilot experiencing a loss of visual reference and subsequent controlled flight into terrain. The pilot’s self‑induced pressure to complete the flight also contributed to the crash. The final accident report can be viewed here.

If you ever happen to come across aircraft wreckage—or what you think is aircraft wreckage—no matter how old it appears to be, please notify local law enforcement and the NTSB Response Operations Center in Washington, DC. If you’re able, please provide latitude and longitude coordinates of the wreckage location, along with photographs of what you found. The NTSB can then continue investigating what happened, which can help prevent future accidents from occurring. Also, importantly, family and friends of those who died in the accident may be interested in the new information. If you ever have the chance to visit the NTSB Training Center in Ashburn, Virginia, you will see an etched window on the front of the building that states the building is dedicated to the victims of transportation accidents and their families. The display also summarizes the NTSB’s crucial work of improving transportation safety for our great nation: “from tragedy we draw knowledge to improve the safety of us all.”

NTSB Training Center display

Remember Bellingham

By Member Jennifer Homendy

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the Olympic Pipe Line rupture in Bellingham, Washington, which resulted in the release of about 237,000 gallons of gasoline into a creek that flowed through Whatcom Falls Park. Sometime after the rupture, the gasoline ignited and burned about 1.5 miles along the creek. Two 10-year-old boys and an 18-year-old young man named Liam Wood died; 8 others were injured.

Bellingham, WA
Postaccident aerial view of portion of Whatcom Creek showing fire damage.

Liam had just graduated from high school and was fly fishing when he was overcome with fumes from the rupture. Years later, I met Liam’s stepfather, Bruce Brabec, as a staffer on Capitol Hill. Since Liam’s death, Bruce has been a tireless advocate for closing gaping holes in pipeline safety regulations, many of which have been revealed as a result of our pipeline accident investigations.

This past fall, I saw Bruce at a pipeline safety conference. The discussions over the days that followed left me wondering how much we’ve accomplished over the last 20 years. Is our pipeline system truly safer?

From a numbers standpoint, it’s good news and bad news. According to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), there were 275 significant gas and hazardous liquid pipeline incidents in 1999, resulting in 22 fatalities and 208 injuries. Since that time, the number of significant incidents has fluctuated as PHMSA adopted new reporting criteria, with 288 significant incidents occurring in 2018.

Fatalities and injuries have decreased since 1999 to 7 fatalities and 92 injuries in 2018, but that provides no comfort for victims, their families, or their loved ones. The fact is, although pipelines are one of the safest ways to transport hazardous material, the impact of just one incident can be devastating. And although the number of accidents is low compared to other modes like highway and rail, there is much more that pipeline operators and federal regulators can do to get to zero incidents, zero fatalities, and zero injuries on our nation’s pipeline system.

Our recommendation for operators to install automatic or remote-control shut-off valves in high‑consequence areas is a perfect example. In 1994, we investigated a natural gas transmission pipeline rupture in Edison, New Jersey, which resulted in a fire that injured 112 people and destroyed 8 buildings. Pipeline operators were unable to shut down the gas flow to the rupture for 2½ hours. Our report on the accident recommended that the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), PHMSA’s predecessor, expedite requirements that automatic- or remote‑operated mainline valves be installed on high-pressure pipelines in urban and environmentally sensitive areas so that failed pipeline segments can be rapidly shut down. We have been recommending valve installation in some form on pipelines since 1971.

In response, RSPA issued a regulation requiring operators to install a valve only if the operator determines it will efficiently protect a high-consequence area in the event of a gas release.

Fast forward to September 9, 2010, when an intrastate natural gas transmission pipeline owned and operated by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company ruptured in a residential area in San Bruno, California. The rupture produced a crater about 72 feet long by 26 feet wide. The section of pipe that ruptured was found 100 feet south of the crater. The released natural gas ignited, resulting in a fire that destroyed 38 homes and damaged 70. Eight people were killed, many were injured, and many more were evacuated from the area.

In our report on the accident, we once again recommended that PHMSA expedite the installation of automatic shutoff valves and remote-control valves on transmission lines in populated areas, drinking water sources, and unusually sensitive ecological resources. Congress then required PHMSA to implement the recommendation in the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (PL 112-90).

It’s been a decade since San Bruno, and PHMSA is nowhere near issuing a final rule to implement our recommendation. This issue is highlighted on our 2019–2020 Most Wanted List of transportation safety improvements (Ensure the Safe Shipment of Hazardous Materials).

MWL03s_HazMat

It’s my hope that over the next few years, we’ll see some real improvements in pipeline safety and avoid tragedies like the ones in Bellingham and San Bruno. With the technology we have readily available today, there’s absolutely no reason for any parent to have to face the loss of a child because of a pipeline accident. I hope that the next time I see Bruce Brabec, we’ll finally have the regulations in place that he’s worked so hard for on Liam’s behalf.

 

 

 

 

Got Plans?

By Chris O’Neil, Chief, Media Relations Division

May is Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month

As a motorcyclist, I know there’s a lot that goes into being a safe rider. There’s training and experience that help build and sharpen our riding skills. There’s equipment designed to help us avoid crashes and equipment designed to protect us when things go wrong. There are awareness campaigns to remind us that distraction, impairment, and speed kill. And there are reports and safety recommendations, developed from our investigations, that often make headlines and create discussion within our community.

We recently completed our investigation of a fatal motorcycle and pickup truck crash that happened during the September 10, 2017, “Toy Run” group ride in Augusta, Maine. Unless you’re an avid NTSB report reader or live in Maine, this report likely didn’t catch your eye, and that’s unfortunate because the probable cause speaks to the foundation of every good ride—from your lone-wolf escape, to the Saturday pick-up ride, to the organized chapter ride—every good ride starts with a good plan.

About 3,000 motorcyclists gathered at the Augusta Civic Center to participate in the 36th annual United Bikers of Maine Toy Run on the day of the crash. The intended route had the herd in staggered formation entering I-95 from exit 112B, traveling to exit 113, where they would leave the highway to proceed east on Route 3/202, then south on Route 32, to reach their final destination of Windsor Fairgrounds.

After entering I-95 and for reasons that could not be determined, a 2007 Harley-Davidson XL 1200 suddenly moved out of the right lane, traveled across the center lane, and entered the left lane in front of a 2008 Ford F250 pickup truck. The pickup truck driver attempted an evasive maneuver but collided with the motorcycle, losing control of the vehicle, due in part to the truck having “collected” the Harley. The truck veered to the right, traveling across the center and right lanes and striking four other motorcycles. The truck and the 2007 Harley traveled through the guardrail, where the truck came to rest on its passenger side and the Harley on its right side in a ditch beside the pickup. Two motorcyclists died as a result of the crash. One motorcyclist and the pickup truck passenger suffered serious injuries, while the driver and four other motorcyclists suffered minor injuries. The motorcyclists involved in the crash were not United Bikers of Maine members, and the motorcyclist who died was not wearing a helmet as required.

September 10, 2017, Augusta, ME crash
Figure 1: NTSB diagram, adapted from Maine State Police diagram, detailing the initial stages of the crash sequence

We determined that the probable cause of the crash was the motorcycle operator’s unsafe maneuver in moving in front of the pickup truck. Contributing to this crash was the failure of the city of Augusta Police Department and the Toy Run event organizer, United Bikers of Maine, to identify and mitigate the risks associated with routing a group ride onto an interstate without providing supplemental traffic control or state police oversight.

Unfortunately, this wasn’t the first time we addressed route planning for special events on streets and highways. In 2012, we investigated a crash in Midland, Texas, involving a parade float and freight train, where the city of Midland and the parade organizer failed to identify and mitigate the risks associated with routing a parade through a highway-railroad grade crossing.

In the case of the Maine motorcycle crash, we found that the event organizers and local authorities similarly failed in planning and communication. We concluded that appropriate risk assessment, involving all stakeholders, most likely would have resulted in the rerouting of the Toy Run event, so that it did not involve the interstate. Had the route remained unchanged, effective traffic control countermeasures could have been applied to increase safety. We also determined that using secondary roadways with lower speed limits for the event route, or at least providing additional oversight, including a traffic plan, and imposing adequate temporary traffic control countermeasures, would have been far more likely to result in a safe event.

September 10, 2017, Augusta, ME crash image 2
Figure 2: NTSB diagram, adapted from Maine State Police diagram, detailing the final rest positions of the crash involved vehicles.

Right about now you’re likely asking, “So how does this apply to me? My pick-up ride is about one percent of the 3,000-rider event in Maine.” Valid point. Your lone-wolf ride or pick-up ride doesn’t require coordination with local or state authorities. But your ride—just like an event ride—requires planning for safety. You need to plan your rides to “identify and mitigate the risks” associated with them.

I tend to ride a lot by myself, and although I allow myself to “explore” the countryside of the region, I at least let someone know what general area I plan to be in, when I plan to return, and if I’m planning any stops along the way. If I do a detailed turn-by-turn route plan, I’ll share that too, noting allowances for the occasional missed turn.

If I lead a pick-up ride, I do a safety brief before we go kickstands up, detailing the route, communications, hand signals, what to do if we get separated, and what to do if someone has an emergency. I try not to take my friends on roads I’ve not traveled, so I can communicate to them what to expect and highlight any potential hazards or unusual road conditions. I check weather, traffic, and other relevant environmental factors to ensure good situational awareness.

To some readers, I’m sure this sounds like overpreparation. I disagree. The moments spent going over a plan help trigger all the other safety behaviors we need to employ to keep ourselves safe on our rides.

There is a wise saying related to planning: “Nobody plans to fail, but many fail to plan.” Applying good planning principals to your rides will help you keep safety at the forefront of your activities, and is one more way to mitigate the risks we face every time we saddle up.

The Golden Spike at 150

By Member Jennifer Homendy

The ceremony for the driving of the golden spike at Promontory Summit, Utah on May 10, 1869; completion of the First Transcontinental Railroad. At center left, Samuel S. Montague, Central Pacific Railroad, shakes hands with Grenville M. Dodge, Union Pacific Railroad (center right). (Source: Wikimedia)

On May 10, 1869, 150 years ago today, a golden spike was driven home at Promontory Summit, in what was then the Utah Territory, by Central Pacific Railroad President Leland Stanford. This momentous event joined the Central Pacific and Union Pacific Railroads, completing the first transcontinental railroad, just 7 years after President Abraham Lincoln signed the Pacific Railway Act authorizing land grants and government financing to US railroads for the purpose of joining the east and the west.

As we know, the project was a tremendous success, but it certainly had its challenges.

In 1863, another act established the gauge for the project at 4 ft., 8½ inches (which became the standard gauge). At the time, gauges varied among railways in the United States. The goal of the transcontinental railroad was to ensure that two railroads met in Utah and were “interoperable” when it came time to begin service. A small difference in width would mean no transcontinental railroad: passengers and freight would have to be offloaded to a new train when incompatible rails met, creating a bottleneck affecting thousands of miles of track.

It wouldn’t have inspired confidence in the transcontinental railroad if the four final spikes couldn’t be driven in because the railroad gauges didn’t match!

Leland Stanford, the man who drove the golden spike, went on to found Stanford University. He could not imagine the contributions to transportation that his namesake university would make, including those to the global positioning system used in positive train control (PTC) systems.

Just as the Central Pacific and Union Pacific Railroads worked to ensure their track was seamless, today’s railroads are focused on implementing PTC by ensuring interoperability among many systems­—passenger, commuter, and freight trains must be able to seamlessly communicate and operate across all railroad networks.

PTC isn’t new. The NTSB has been urging railroads to implement it, in some form, since 1970, 1 year after the United States met President John F. Kennedy’s challenge to land a man on the moon. Since then, the NTSB has investigated 152 PTC-preventable accidents that resulted in more than 300 fatalities and 6,700 injuries. PTC remains on our Most Wanted List of transportation safety improvements.

Seven years passed between when Lincoln signed the Pacific Railway Act in 1862 to when the golden spike was driven home at Promontory Summit. Eight years passed from JFK’s speech to Congress about a moonshot in 1961 to Neil Armstrong’s first steps on the gray dust of the lunar surface. PTC was mandated by Congress in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. It has now been more than 10 years since the act was signed into law.

Today’s golden spike celebration might well feature photos of two locomotives posed head-to-head, as they were for the original golden spike celebration 150 years ago. Perhaps that would also be a fitting image to promote PTC, which, among other safety benefits, would automatically stop trains in time to prevent train-to-train collisions.

As we commemorate 1869’s golden spike, the NTSB continues to await implementation of fully operational PTC, which is long overdue. Let’s end the wait and start planning our own commemoration of the day we finally made all rail travel exponentially safer.

 

Global Road Safety Week

By Nicholas Worrell, Chief, Safety Advocacy Division

Around the world, about 1.25 million people lose their lives every year in motor vehicle crashes. That’s roughly the entire population of Dallas, Texas. Others—20–50 million—are injured or disabled. That’s about the equivalent of injuring everybody in a medium-sized country, like Spain (46 million) or Ukraine (44 million).

May is Global Youth Traffic Safety Month (GYTSM), and May 6–12, 2019, marks the Fifth United Nations Global Road Safety Week. These events draw attention to the need for stronger road safety leadership to help achieve a set of global goals. International governments have set an ambitious goal to reduce by half the number of deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents globally by 2020.

On behalf of the NTSB, during this GYTSM, I’ll join with advocates and road safety experts from around the world to launch action through the ongoing campaign “Save Lives—#SpeakUp.” The campaign “provides an opportunity for civil society to generate demands for strong leadership for road safety, especially around concrete, evidence‑based interventions.” From May 8 to 10, I’ll also have the opportunity to speak to an audience of public transportation agencies from throughout the Caribbean region, as well as road transportation professionals and academics from around the world, at the 8th annual Caribbean Regional Congress of the International Road Federation in Georgetown, Guyana. As a Caribbean native, I am especially looking forward to discussing the NTSB’s lessons learned, recommendations, and advocacy efforts with professionals there.

One of the big messages I hope to get across is that ending road crashes and their resulting injuries and fatalities worldwide will require a cultural shift, and that shift must begin with young people, who are more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than any other age group. More people between the ages of 15 and 29 lose their lives in crashes than from HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and homicide combined. GYTSM is a time to encourage this demographic to take the mantel and fight to change those statistics.

To learn more about our work in support of Global Youth Traffic Safety Month read some of our past NTSB blog posts https://safetycompass.wordpress.com/?s=global+youth+traffic+safety+month.

Would you like to add your voice to the conversation happening this week around Global Road Safety Week?  Join the Youth For Road Safety global youth Twitter chat on Friday, May 10, 2019, from 15:00–16:00 GMT (10:00–11:00 EST), follow @Yours_YforRS and use the hashtag #SpeakUpForRoadSafety.

 

 

Eyes on The Road, Hands on the Wheel, Mind on One Task

By Nicholas Worrell, Chief, Safety Advocacy Division

On April 3, I represented the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) at an event kicking off Distracted Driving Awareness Month and California Teen Driver Safety Week, in Sacramento. I challenged California to lead the nation in acting on NTSB’s 2011 recommendation to ban the nonemergency driver use of portable electronic devices that do not support the driving task. So far, many states have banned driver use of handheld phones, and all but three have banned texting and driving. But none go as far as our recommendation demands.

Sacramento CA - Press Conference
NTSB Chief of Safety Advocacy, Nicholas Worrell (at podium) addresses media at the April 3, 2019, Distracted Driving Awareness Month kick-off event in Sacramento, CA.

Since the Sacramento event, I’ve spoken about the recommendation to radio and television outlets in the Golden State, some with call-in segments, and I’ve read the comments on news websites covering my kickoff remarks. I’ve learned a lot about what most troubles (and impresses) people about the proposal:

  • Many gave examples of their experiences with dangerous distracted driving behavior on the road and supported the safety recommendation.
  • Some pointed out their personal ability to multitask (an ability at odds with the science of distraction).
  • Some disparaged the danger compared to other distractions (eg, people eating or putting on their makeup).
  • Some asked how the law can be enforced. Indeed, this is certainly a challenge, but one that could be addressed with technology, especially if device-makers get on board. California already bans all nonemergency use of these devices for young drivers and bus drivers, so there’s precedent.
  • Finally, many pointed to technology solutions, and I believe that they’re spot-on. In fact, in response to the same crash that spawned our proposed cell phone ban, we also issued a recommendation encouraging the Consumer Electronics Association to work with its members to disable drivers’ cell phones while driving (except for emergency use, and for use in support of the driving task). We would love to have a meaningful dialogue with device manufacturers through the CEA.

Distracted(4).jpgWhen you talk on a cell phone or become engaged with phone operations, your mind is not on the driving task. Have you ever shushed a passenger while you try to decide if you’re at your freeway exit? How about missed a turn or blown past a stopped school bus while having a conversation on your Bluetooth-enabled, hands-free smartphone? It turns out that we can’t really multitask. We slow down as we disengage from one task and engage in another. It even takes us longer to disengage and reengage our visual focus, to say nothing of completing a competing cognitive task. To experience this lag, just run through the first 10 letters of the alphabet out loud as quickly as you can. Then do the same with the numbers 1 to 10. Then try them together: A-1, B-2, and so on. Do you slow down when “multitasking”? Most people do.

People are quick to admit that manual and visual distraction can cause crashes, but few understand that cognitive distraction can be just as significant.

The NTSB believes that California should apply its cell-phone ban for bus drivers and novice drivers to the general driver population. We also believe that California is the perfect state to lead the charge to develop technology that will help end this deadly problem.

As we learn more about the science of distraction and distracted driving, it becomes more and more obvious that, as distractions are eliminated, Californian lives will be saved.